The Thing About Tests - Final Thoughts

"Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly, and applying the wrong remedies." —Groucho Marx

In the context of government issued testing, I feel this quote is fairly on point. But I also admit that I don't think I've got much to offer in the way of functional alternatives. Testing serves a variety of goals including performance measurement, admissions standards for certain institutions, and teacher accountability. But I can't honestly say that I think these goals are all being served well by current testing regimes, although I will say they're being served efficiently. Machine-scored testing is cheaper and faster than every other practical (or impractical) alternative.  Although government issued standardized testing seems to be the proverbial rented mule of educational discourse these days. If the buzz is to be believed, these tests are antiquated, overused, and worthy of a sound beating and a trip to the glue factory.

I get it. For those readers not from Alberta, I can tell you that as far as Canadian provinces go, we have historically taken our government exams pretty seriously. Up until fairly recently, we tested students in grades 3, 6, 9, and 12 comprehensively in all core subject areas. Until last year, our 12th grade Diploma (exit) Examinations had the highest weighting in the country with 50% of the marks in each matriculation course devoted to a highly comprehensive final test written in one or two 3-hour sessions at the end of a semester.

Over much of my career, I have taught a number of the courses that had these tests awaiting my students at their conclusion. To say they have had an impact on my pedagogical choices would be an understatement of monumental proportions. I would go so far as saying that not only did they dictate the nature of teaching in those particular classes, their ever-present shadow on high school culture has informed my and my colleagues' practices even beyond the courses and grades in which these exams appear. In fact I would even say that Diploma Exams have shaped high school pedagogy more than any other single influence in Alberta high schools over the last 30+ years.

Now is the point in the post where you might expect me to go into a lot of detail summarizing all of the reasons why these things are the embodiment of evil. Blah blah high stakes, yadda yadda only tests a very limited number of things, blah blah unfair to kids. I'm not going to bother. It's been done to death, and if you're reading my blog, chances are good that you're already drinking the "Standardized Government Tests Are Awful" Kool-Aid. And the reality is that I'm no great fan either. It's been many a semester where I've consoled a student who had a mental lapse, that led to self-doubt, that snowballed to panic, that led to a bad result, and necessitated a re-write 5 months down the road when the material would be even less fresh.  They're no fun.

Instead I want to discuss what I think we should be considering, as teachers navigating these tests, in the context of education reform. Firstly, lets put ourselves in the shoes of the folks who tell us these things are a necessity: our elected officials and our Education Ministries (Departments). Last year my province spent over 6 billion dollars on educating people in Alberta. That number is dwarfed by the budgets of larger provinces and states across the border. It is money that is generated by citizens and businesses that both use these services and benefit from them. Do we need some manner of process to measure the effectiveness of our education systems -- to justify how and why we're spending billions of dollars of taxpayer money on these things? Absolutely.

But we need to make sure that the tests measure what they need to measure while at the same time having our system do what the system needs to do: prepare students for a productive and rewarding life after high school.  As I have said earlier, the goals of measurement and the goals of assessment don't always align.

So how, in the mielieu of reform, can we reconcile the need for these tests with superior pedagogy?

1. Firstly, we need to stop preparing kids for 12th grade exams from the first day they walk into high school (or even earlier if that's what is happening).  The notion that we have to teach kids how to take the tests is fine, but that doesn't need to be an every day occurrence.  If your course doesn't have a big standardized test at the end of it, don't pretend that you need to get them ready for the test in the next course that does.  Be clear and purposeful in identifying the competencies that have direct transference into that next chapter.  Make the methods in teaching those facets the exception and not the rule.


2. If you're teaching a class that has the big state test at the end of it, ask yourself seriously how it's going to be used.  Grade 6 Provincial Achievement Exams have no bearing on whether your students will get into the "good" junior high or the "bad" one.  How seriously does your school or division take the discrepancy reports at the end of the year?  Is your job actually on the line?  I'm not advocating "going rogue" and ignoring the test or letting your kids tank because it doesn't matter.  I'm simply suggesting that if the presence of the test is a barrier to transforming your teaching practice, make sure that the test is actually a barrier and not simply a convenient excuse.  Then ask yourself how long you really need getting your kids ready for that test.  Does it take the entire semester or year?  Work on finding the minimum amount of time that actually needs to be devoted to test prep, and fill the rest of your time with the best learning experience you can muster.
   
   Or better yet, get real with your learning team and take on the challenge of designing effective strategies that meet the demands of a 21st century, student-centered learning environment that also helps kids to succeed on the tests.  I freely concede that such a goal is substantially easier said than done, and nearly laughable for some courses (I'm looking at you Biology 30).  However, even in the most overloaded-with-content courses, we still need to acknowledge that a strictly stand-and-deliver method is pedagogically ill-advised, particularly in an era of ever shrinking attention spans and ever increasing options for sound teaching practices.


3. Join the growing ranks of activists who are campaigning and petitioning to have the nature of state exams changed to better reflect their purpose and scope.  The message is being received.  Alberta has made recent and significant changes within the Assessment Branch.  More work is needed.  If this is an area that matters to you, get involved.  Teacher's unions, education advocacy groups, school board councils, and even direct communication with government agencies and elected officials can all be part of the equation.  If they can't be eliminated, let's at least pursue an agenda that offers room to meet some objectives by alternative means, continue to reduce the conflation of measurement and performance ranking objectives, and an assurance that the tests continue to test what is actually needed in academia and industry and not just what an ivory-tower curriculum manager thinks is needed.


4. Work toward giving the powers-that-be a convincing argument that there is a better way to educate our youth.  Much of what we do is done because that's "always how it's been done."  If we can work towards finding the system that obsoletes our current one, the tests will have to adapt or go away.  Help make the argument that they need to be changed by being the example of "the better way" and by helping to spread that way.  Join the revolution!

TL;DR:  State tests are a drag, but right now, they're a necessary drag.  Worry about them less when they don't affect you directly, a little bit less when they do, and help to convince those who need convincing that there's a better way.

Vive la resistance!